|
Frequently asked questions
About the Study
On Congestion Pricing Other Questions
Back to Mobility, Access and Pricing Study home.
What is congestion pricing? Congestion pricing involves charging drivers a user fee to drive in specific, congested areas or corridors. This system is being used in major cities all over the world and is based on personal choice-motorists can drive if the convenience is worth the fee, or use alternatives like transit, biking, carpooling, or walking. Or, they can choose to travel during less-congested times if it they feel it is not worth paying to drive into the priced area during peak periods. The revenues from congestion charges are used to fund transportation improvements, such as better transit service, road improvements, and bicycle and pedestrian projects. Will it work in San Francisco? This is the question the Study is meant to answer. Congestion pricing has worked in other cities and has the potential to improve San Francisco's congestion problem as well. This solution has proven effective in cities such as London and Stockholm. Other U.S. cities, including Los Angeles and Chicago, are studying congestion pricing programs and/or planning demonstration projects. However, one size does not fit all, and the challenge of studying congestion pricing in San Francisco will be to determine if there is a feasible, "right-sized" alternative that can enhance mobility and access to the downtown while maintaining economic vitality. Any pricing program considered for San Francisco will need to be shaped by our city's principles with the broad goal of achieving a more vibrant and livable city for residents, workers, businesses, and visitors. What are the goals of congestion pricing? Two of the most precious resources to Bay Area residents are our time and our environment. Congestion pricing is a solution that can potentially protect both of these resources. By managing congestion where it does exist and improving overall mobility in the city, travelers would waste less time in traffic or planning around unreliable commute times. The goals of pricing are consistent with the City's "Transit First" and "Clean and Green" policies. In this way, the long-term goal of congestion pricing is to provide a means for sustainable growth of the city. How bad is the congestion problem and where/when does it exist? There are about one million trips in and out of the combined Downtown, SOMA, and Civic Center areas on an average weekday. About half of daily travelers to these areas are driving in cars, while about 30% take transit. During the evening peak hours, about 40% of travelers to and from downtown, SOMA, and Civic Center use transit. Approximately half of daily travel to the area we are studying originates outside San Francisco and approaches the city by a limited number of congested regional routes, namely 101, 280, and the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges. Over 60% of the surface streets in downtown San Francisco average less than 10 mph in peak periods. Many congested auto routes are also high ridership transit routes, so our most important transit services also suffer from these slow speeds. ABOUT THE STUDY
What are the goals of the Study? The Mobility, Access and Pricing Study will explore the feasibility of congestion pricing through technical, economic, financial, and legal/institutional evaluations of alternative pricing and mobility packages. The Study will also involve the public in the design and evaluation of these alternatives, including assessing their respective benefits, costs, and impacts. Why is San Francisco looking at congestion pricing now? Traffic congestion in San Francisco restricts mobility and threatens the city's overall quality of life and economic competitiveness. At the same time, the city seeks to add significant amounts of new housing and jobs in a way that is environmentally sustainable. San Franciscans have always valued being at the forefront of innovative solutions to the challenges faced in urban environments. What's more, a grant of $1 million from the federal government to study congestion pricing, and the potential for additional federal funds for implementation, make it an opportune time to investigate the policy's applicability to San Francisco. What is the current status of the study? We are now in the middle of the Study and at this time are developing potential congestion pricing scenarios and accompanying policies. We shared preliminary findings and gathered public input during our first round of public outreach in fall 2007, and we will be soliciting public input on the evaluation and refinement of congestion pricing scenarios during a series of public workshops to be held in July and August throughout the Bay Area. What is the timeline for this Study? The overall schedule for the Study is 18 months with a target completion date of December 2008. Preliminary results are expected in late fall, and we then hope to finalize our results and present a comprehensive report on the benefits and impacts of congestion pricing to the public. Will there be opportunities for public input? Yes, public input is an important part of the Study. The Authority is hosting a second round of public workshops in July and August and will hold a third series of workshops in the fall. Public involvement efforts also include direct outreach to local and regional interests, such as presentations to community groups and civic organizations. Targeted market research activities, including polls and focus groups, are being conducted throughout the Study. Additionally, the Study is informed by the ongoing involvement of several stakeholder advisory groups, including representatives from local and regional transportation agencies, motorists and transit riders, members of the business community, and the Authority's Citizens Advisory Committee. ON CONGESTION PRICING What would the fee be for driving into the charged area? This is one of the key questions that will be addressed in the Study. The fees charged in cities where such a system has been implemented vary in the amount charged, payment and enforcement mechanisms, and variability depending on the time of day. Stockholm and London give us two different models. The current charge in London is $16 (£8) per day. In Stockholm, the charge varies between about $1.50 (10 kr) and $3.00 (20 kr) per trip, depending on time of day, with a maximum charge of about $8.60 (60 kr) per day. Our Study will explore the various forms congestion pricing can take and seek the right model for San Francisco. How would you define the priced roadways or area? In general, candidates for congestion pricing are areas with high levels of existing and projected traffic, low running speeds, and unreliable travel times for autos and transit. All of these measures are indicators of congestion. Other factors include whether an area is expected to have future economic or housing growth and the availability of robust transit options for local and regional travelers as an alternative to automobile trips. What are the potential congestion pricing options by location, fee level, and time of day? There are two basic options for congestion pricing in this context. The first is pricing for driving in a defined area or zone. The second is pricing entry points or gateways leading into congested areas in San Francisco. The charges could be assessed either as a single daily charge or as a charge levied each time a specific location is crossed, similar to current bridge tolls. In addition, the fee could change as congestion varies throughout the day. Cities that have implemented congestion pricing typically levy the charge only on weekdays beginning in the morning and ending in the early evening. Would there be exemptions for any groups? What about people living within the charged area, low income people, people with disabilities, hybrid cars, taxis, motorcycles, etc.? This is a question we will explore during the Study. London currently offers discounts or exemptions for residents of the charging zone and certain vehicle types. Stockholm offers exemptions for alternative fuel vehicles, motorcycles, mopeds, and for people with disabilities. We are exploring the possibility of similar discounts as part of this Study. Potential discounts include fleet rates for commercial vehicles and rental cars, a "fee"-bate for bridge toll-payers, and a substantial discount for low-income drivers. We are also studying exemptions for taxis and disabled motorists. The Study will assess the technical and financial implications of implementing these policies, and solicit public input on these policies. How much would it cost to set up and run this system? Again, this is a question that the Study is meant to answer. The existing systems in London and Stockholm give us an indication of the potential costs and financial returns associated with a congestion pricing program. The London system cost about $307 million (US$) to set up and $150 million to operate the first year. In the 2006/2007 fiscal year, the London system generated $437 million (£213 million) in total revenues. When operating and administrative costs of $185 million (£90 million) are subtracted, net revenues total $250 million (£123 million), a significant net gain that the city uses to improve its public transportation system and transportation infrastructure. The seven-month Stockholm congestion pricing trial cost $260 million (US$) to set up and $70 million to operate. Now fully-implemented, the city's program generates approximately $50 million in net revenue per year. The estimated cost to implement and operate congestion pricing in San Francisco will ultimately depend on the program design and the specific technology used. Who would pay for it? The goal is for the system to be self-funding. That is, the revenues from congestion pricing should pay for the system and the cost of operations. Both London and Stockholm have shown that operating costs can be covered by congestion charging revenues. The Study will explore how initial start up costs can be funded. It is worth noting that the federal government made up to $1 billion available this year alone for these types of programs. Would bridge tolls stay the same? Yes - the study is not looking at changing any bridge tolls. What would the revenues generated from the congestion charge be used for? This question will be answered by the Study. Congestion pricing revenue would be reinvested in the transportation system, including upgrades to transit operations, such as improved service on San Francisco's express routes and rapid corridors and on key regional transit routes. Improvements to the city's streets would also be funded by a congestion pricing program. These improvements could include signal timing, street resurfacing, bike lane and pedestrian improvements, and real-time information systems. How much revenue could a congestion pricing program in San Francisco raise? Estimates of the revenues that could be raised in San Francisco should be available in the coming months. In London, the system generates about $200 million (US$) in net revenue per year. About $50 million is generated annually in Stockholm, a more similarly sized city to San Francisco. OTHER QUESTIONS Would there be improved access for bicyclists and pedestrians? Yes. The revenues generated by congestion pricing would be used to fund a variety of improvements to the entire street environment, including enhancements for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Is this just a way to help with Muni's budget deficit? The goal of congestion pricing is not to generate revenue, but to manage congestion and improve mobility. The revenue generated by a congestion pricing system is an added benefit that would allow San Francisco to provide accompanying improvements to transit, our streets, and other transportation infrastructure. Is any other U.S. city contemplating this? Congestion pricing is used in London, Singapore, Rome, Stockholm, and Norway, among other cities. In the U.S., congestion pricing has primarily been applied to carpool lanes, known as HOT lanes (San Diego, Minneapolis), as well as through toll roads (Orange County) and parking (Redwood City). Seattle is also planning to price a major bridge which serves as a gateway to the city center. New York studied congestion pricing and was set to receive $350 million in federal funding to implement area pricing in Manhattan on all streets south of 86th Street. However, despite support from the Mayor, the City Council, the business community, and transit advocates, the New York state legislature tabled the necessary legislation to implement a congestion pricing program and the federal monies were lost. New York will continue to study the possibility of implementing a program. The system in London has been in place since 2003, and the program has been so popular that the pricing area was recently expanded. Before congestion pricing was implemented, traffic in central London was flowing at 2-5mph. Now it averages 10mph. Most displaced drivers switched to transit, and businesses have remained healthy. Congestion pricing has resulted in a reduction in congestion, an increase in public transit use, decreased pollution, and improved bus service (with more regular schedules). In Stockholm, congestion pricing was instituted in 2006 for a seven-month trial implementation, which was followed by a public referendum on the program and permanent implementation in 2007. The Stockholm program has reduced traffic by 22% and reduced CO2 emissions by more than 10%. Prior to the trial implementation, public opinion in Stockholm, as in London, was two-thirds against congestion pricing. Public support eventually rose to two-thirds as people came to understand the policy and the associated benefits. Does this only apply within the bounds of San Francisco? What about all of the other congested areas in the Bay Area?
San Francisco is only looking at the potential for congestion pricing on streets and roads within San Francisco, not outside of the city. While the congestion charge would be on local facilities, the effects (and potential congestion relief benefits) would be far-reaching, as many of the vehicle trips traveling on our streets in congested periods originate outside the city. Congestion pricing revenues would also potentially be used to enhance regional transit services. Similar programs are being explored in other parts of the region. Alameda County and Santa Clara County are implementing a High Occupancy Toll lane in the I-680 corridor (allowing single occupant drivers to use the HOV lane for a fee that varies with the amount of traffic in the HOV lane) and both counties are looking at applying HOT lanes to other parts of their freeway network. Redwood City has implemented variable parking pricing, and other cities in the region are also studying this strategy. What does this mean for downtown businesses, especially small businesses? The Study is assessing this question. In London, large businesses supported pricing while some small businesses felt that the charge affected sales. However, several years after the system was implemented, it has been found that businesses within the charged zone are growing faster than businesses outside the zone. This is consistent with earlier studies that found evidence of higher spending levels in Central London by transit users and pedestrians as compared with automobile drivers. In Stockholm, sales within the charged zone have seen an increase in sales of 5%, in part because the charging system requires drivers to pay to both enter and exit the zone. This gives central Stockholm shoppers an incentive to shop locally rather than drive out to the suburbs. We've recently conducted an economic intercept surveys of downtown shoppers and have found that about two-thirds of individuals visiting downtown currently travel there on foot or by transit and that they spend as much as, if not more than, drivers shopping downtown over the course of a month. Clearly, driving in downtown San Francisco now isn't cheap or easy. With a congestion pricing program in place, it is possible that downtown businesses will see an increase in customer traffic - including foot traffic - simply because traveling downtown would be faster, easier, and more pleasant. Would there be an impact on public health and safety? With congestion pricing, we would certainly see a positive impact on public safety because traffic flow would be smoothed and the congestion fee revenues would be reinvested in pedestrian safety projects. London saw a 7% decline in car crashes and a 6% decline in crashes involving pedestrians. Bicycling was also up considerably (by about one-third) in London, for example. What are the environmental impacts of congestion on San Francisco? We don't seem to have smog. As in most urban areas, motorists in San Francisco and throughout the Bay Area generate significant amounts of polluting emissions and greenhouse gases. The city's unique topography and weather mean that emissions rarely manifest as smog, as might occur in inland areas. Still, local residents understand the need to reduce our impact on the environment. Both Governor Schwarzenegger and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom have established aggressive greenhouse gas reduction goals*. Innovative and proactive congestion management measures will be a key component of efforts to reach these goals. Congestion pricing has been found to be an effective tool in this regard, reducing CO2 emissions in Stockholm by more than 10% and in London by 16%. * Executive Order S305: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (CA Climate Action Team). SF Climate Action Plan: Reduce GHG emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2012 (SF Department of the Environment). Back to Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study home.
|
